Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
Moderator: ickputzdirwech
Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
(I first wanted to post it in "Bug reports", but I figured - there are probably more pressing issues to be dealt with . Also - there are tons of threads about the circuit network, but this is a very simple suggestion, which I believe is just something the developers overlooked. I haven't seen a thread mentioning this explicitly, but as there are a lot of them I may have missed something, and if I did - I'm sorry )
Currently the minimum setting for a smart inserter on a circuit network is 1. This is fine most of the time, and you can even get away with it if you want the inserter to only operate if a certain resource has 0 quantity (with "item < 1" condition). But there is no way to make the inserter only operate if a certain resource has non-zero quantity. This is sometimes useful when making logical conditions with the circuit network, but currently it's impossible.
I can't see any reason not to allow the condition to go down to 0. Do you?
Thank you!
Currently the minimum setting for a smart inserter on a circuit network is 1. This is fine most of the time, and you can even get away with it if you want the inserter to only operate if a certain resource has 0 quantity (with "item < 1" condition). But there is no way to make the inserter only operate if a certain resource has non-zero quantity. This is sometimes useful when making logical conditions with the circuit network, but currently it's impossible.
I can't see any reason not to allow the condition to go down to 0. Do you?
Thank you!
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
>1 means a ressource has a non-zero quantity.
<1 means a ressource has a zero quantity.
Negative quantities are not possible so I don't see your point.
<1 means a ressource has a zero quantity.
Negative quantities are not possible so I don't see your point.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
I think what he means is that x>1 means the value of x is 2 or higher.tralala wrote:>1 means a resource has a non-zero quantity.
<1 means a resource has a zero quantity.
Negative quantities are not possible so I don't see your point.
While x=1 means exactly one item in the chest.
While x<1 could only mean a value of zero.
What would you use to detect if a chest had one item or more in it? You can't.
x>0 is what you would use to detect if a chest has ANY of an item within it.
Am i understanding you correctly sillyfly?
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
Yes, exactly.
As I said - it is not a big deal, but it would be nice to have, and I would assume it would be very easy to implement.
As I said - it is not a big deal, but it would be nice to have, and I would assume it would be very easy to implement.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
Supposedly, an update that will introduce logic-gates will come soon. My big gripe about was that they did not include the number 6144 in the slider. This number tells you when a chest is FULL, and could be used to create giant, super efficient storage depots.sillyfly wrote:Yes, exactly.
As I said - it is not a big deal, but it would be nice to have, and I would assume it would be very easy to implement.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
Presumably you would need different numbers according to the different stack sizes of objects (Barrels stack up to 8 so you would need 384, while Alien artifacts stack up to 500 so you would need 24000). But I see your pointtherapist wrote: My big gripe about was that they did not include the number 6144 in the slider. This number tells you when a chest is FULL, and could be used to create giant, super efficient storage depots.
Allowing such freedom would probably mean having a text box and not just a slider, to allow you to "hit" the right number.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
I dont want every number, but it just seems illogical not to let me detect if a chest is full or not. Kind of makes the red wire and green wire conditions useless for storage purposes.sillyfly wrote:Presumably you would need different numbers according to the different stack sizes of objects (Barrels stack up to 8 so you would need 384, while Alien artifacts stack up to 500 so you would need 24000). But I see your pointtherapist wrote: My big gripe about was that they did not include the number 6144 in the slider. This number tells you when a chest is FULL, and could be used to create giant, super efficient storage depots.
Allowing such freedom would probably mean having a text box and not just a slider, to allow you to "hit" the right number.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
First some links, then some comment.
This is the oldest about this problem:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... ?f=6&t=974
I think this post is still valid:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... rter#p7936
Here I show the first time, that the equal is more or less useless:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =23&t=2926
Here something about good stack sizes and that the ruler should depend on the context:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=2209
Here, that we have a problem with the stacksize-bonus, which makes the EQUAL-operator only usable in very special situations:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=7&t=2413
See also this: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=7&t=2117 -> point #2: " when requesting one Roboport I get two"
And now my opinion:
The theme is a complex of different things: Inserters and logistic system, stack sizes, plusminus-one-problems, the inserter- and logistic-stack-size, inserters and bots filling something at the same time, using the right dimensions in the right context, interface design, and per sure a handfull of other side-effects.
So I cannot just change a small thing, I need to change a lot.
#1 Remove the equal-operator and eventually replace < and > with <= and >= (or add them). Because the equal operator will definitely fail, when you based some trick on that and then research stacksize bonus.
#2 The selection of the number should have 5 levels:
-- simple: Items 0-99, type in number, or press two buttons (calculator), or drag mouse...
-- More items: the scale how it is about yet, but I would prefer buttons and that it is based on the stack-size of the selected item-type
-- Stack-context: X stacks of the selected items-type.
-- chest context: X (logistic) chests full of this item type.
-- any number, a special/hidden mode of the first.
#3 Some clever handling of the overloading. I made that suggestion, but is it usable?
#4 What does an inserter/bot do with stuff, he cannot deploy? This question is complex.
This is the oldest about this problem:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... ?f=6&t=974
I think this post is still valid:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... rter#p7936
Here I show the first time, that the equal is more or less useless:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =23&t=2926
Here something about good stack sizes and that the ruler should depend on the context:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=2209
Here, that we have a problem with the stacksize-bonus, which makes the EQUAL-operator only usable in very special situations:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=7&t=2413
See also this: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=7&t=2117 -> point #2: " when requesting one Roboport I get two"
And now my opinion:
The theme is a complex of different things: Inserters and logistic system, stack sizes, plusminus-one-problems, the inserter- and logistic-stack-size, inserters and bots filling something at the same time, using the right dimensions in the right context, interface design, and per sure a handfull of other side-effects.
So I cannot just change a small thing, I need to change a lot.
#1 Remove the equal-operator and eventually replace < and > with <= and >= (or add them). Because the equal operator will definitely fail, when you based some trick on that and then research stacksize bonus.
#2 The selection of the number should have 5 levels:
-- simple: Items 0-99, type in number, or press two buttons (calculator), or drag mouse...
-- More items: the scale how it is about yet, but I would prefer buttons and that it is based on the stack-size of the selected item-type
-- Stack-context: X stacks of the selected items-type.
-- chest context: X (logistic) chests full of this item type.
-- any number, a special/hidden mode of the first.
#3 Some clever handling of the overloading. I made that suggestion, but is it usable?
#4 What does an inserter/bot do with stuff, he cannot deploy? This question is complex.
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
You made it really really complex by including alot of other issues, can we just get a 0 please? I think thats all we are looking for here, the rest, ehhhhhhh, fuck it.ssilk wrote:First some links, then some comment.
This is the oldest about this problem:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... ?f=6&t=974
I think this post is still valid:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... rter#p7936
Here I show the first time, that the equal is more or less useless:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =23&t=2926
Here something about good stack sizes and that the ruler should depend on the context:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=2209
Here, that we have a problem with the stacksize-bonus, which makes the EQUAL-operator only usable in very special situations:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=7&t=2413
See also this: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=7&t=2117 -> point #2: " when requesting one Roboport I get two"
And now my opinion:
The theme is a complex of different things: Inserters and logistic system, stack sizes, plusminus-one-problems, the inserter- and logistic-stack-size, inserters and bots filling something at the same time, using the right dimensions in the right context, interface design, and per sure a handfull of other side-effects.
So I cannot just change a small thing, I need to change a lot.
#1 Remove the equal-operator and eventually replace < and > with <= and >= (or add them). Because the equal operator will definitely fail, when you based some trick on that and then research stacksize bonus.
#2 The selection of the number should have 5 levels:
-- simple: Items 0-99, type in number, or press two buttons (calculator), or drag mouse...
-- More items: the scale how it is about yet, but I would prefer buttons and that it is based on the stack-size of the selected item-type
-- Stack-context: X stacks of the selected items-type.
-- chest context: X (logistic) chests full of this item type.
-- any number, a special/hidden mode of the first.
#3 Some clever handling of the overloading. I made that suggestion, but is it usable?
#4 What does an inserter/bot do with stuff, he cannot deploy? This question is complex.
Kovarex changed stack size, so my complaint about the chest might have changed, I have to build a new base and see how it all plays out before I update my complaints.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
I had to laugh when I read that phrasetherapist wrote:before I update my complaints.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
I must excuse. I should have pressed the "save draft" button. I was indeed a bit tired yesterday. Nothing good comes along, when I'm in that mood.therapist wrote: You made it really really complex by including alot of other issues, can we just get a 0 please? I think thats all we are looking for here, the rest, ehhhhhhh, fuck it.
To defend it: the removal of the equal is as important in my eyes, cause it misleads too much.
Right, I want to begin a new game, too, clause of that.Kovarex changed stack size, so my complaint about the chest might have changed, I have to build a new base and see how it all plays out before I update my complaints.
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
Why is this still a suggestion?
From what I can tell the slider now starts at 0 and one can enter any number in the text field next to the slider now, including negative numbers.
From what I can tell the slider now starts at 0 and one can enter any number in the text field next to the slider now, including negative numbers.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
Because nobody moved it to the "already implemented" sub section ever since the last post 2.5 years ago.mrvn wrote:Why is this still a suggestion?
From what I can tell the slider now starts at 0 and one can enter any number in the text field next to the slider now, including negative numbers.
Re: Allow circuit network conditions from 0 up
It's really not possible to keep track of all the suggestions. About 4000 suggestions from nearly 5 years. If someone sees an old suggestion he needs just to click on the "report"-button.
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...